Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..remery said..
If most Australians were pro-science there wouldn't have been a need for mandates and lockdowns. ...
Smack-bang right on the head there remery. Boom, jackpot bullseye.
If only the politicans and the pseudo-politicians who stood behind them followed the science we wouldn't have had lockdowns. And without lockdowns we wouldn't have needed the mandates as the only politciaclly palettable way out of the lockdowns.
You are right. As soon as they all started to try to out-do each other, as soon as they had to top the daily statistics, that is when it all turned to ****.
Whatever it takes to be 100% Covid free in New Zealand, Jacinta declared. Then they all had follow. Couldn't be out-covidid by Jacinta. No horrible NSW-covid in Victoria was Dan's political promise. So you needed a permit to enter. McGowan could go one better - no eastern states covid in precious WA - so the whole border shut. Wait, Anna promised anything required to guarantee no child in Qld would die with Covid - so the barricades went up down the middle of the street. Those on the wrong side were infected scum who had to be repelled for the greater good.
And from there there was only ever going to be one way out. A vaccine had to be found. And it had to work. So it was, and it did.
And now we are here.
So, yep remery I couldn't agree with you more - of only they had continued the intiial science based approach, suppress and herd immunity was the pollies phrase - then we wouldn't have had lockdowns and ergo, we would not have needed mandates.
So you're approach would have been what?
Select to expand quoteD3 said..Carantoc said..remery said..
If most Australians were pro-science there wouldn't have been a need for mandates and lockdowns. ...
Smack-bang right on the head there remery. Boom, jackpot bullseye.
If only the politicans and the pseudo-politicians who stood behind them followed the science we wouldn't have had lockdowns. And without lockdowns we wouldn't have needed the mandates as the only politciaclly palettable way out of the lockdowns.
You are right. As soon as they all started to try to out-do each other, as soon as they had to top the daily statistics, that is when it all turned to ****.
Whatever it takes to be 100% Covid free in New Zealand, Jacinta declared. Then they all had follow. Couldn't be out-covidid by Jacinta. No horrible NSW-covid in Victoria was Dan's political promise. So you needed a permit to enter. McGowan could go one better - no eastern states covid in precious WA - so the whole border shut. Wait, Anna promised anything required to guarantee no child in Qld would die with Covid - so the barricades went up down the middle of the street. Those on the wrong side were infected scum who had to be repelled for the greater good.
And from there there was only ever going to be one way out. A vaccine had to be found. And it had to work. So it was, and it did.
And now we are here.
So, yep remery I couldn't agree with you more - of only they had continued the intiial science based approach, suppress and herd immunity was the pollies phrase - then we wouldn't have had lockdowns and ergo, we would not have needed mandates.
So you're approach would have been what?
I filter all this nonsense out and you have to go and quote it...
From memory we were in a holding pattern with lockdowns UNTIL a vaccine became available. I think SloMo was even quoted as saying as much.
Which is really the only thing that can get you out of it unless you just let everyone catch it, aka 1918. See how that worked out for people.
It's a worry though. So soon that we forget what we all went though and the timeline. It has only been a few years but its so easy to forget what the government was dealing with.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Congrats myscreenname for well and truly selling your soul.
A bunch of you actually.
Where the fark is your empathy?
Everyone should take the time to read the comments. Nearly every comment they are appalled by the obvious cover up and the lying PM response.
I have a lot of empathy for people who lost friends and family due to the spread of vaccine misinformation by gullible fools.
How's your leg feeling these days? Medical science and donations from friends and family work out for you? No limp?
Adverse Events reported to the TGA Database in Australia as of 29 October 2023
COVID-19 vaccine safety report - 02-11-23 | Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)
ONE HUNDRED and FORTY THOUSAND adverse events - a damning statistic if ever there was one.
Remember this is with only around ten percent of all harm being reported.
Peter, you are almost quoting true figures, heres the rest of the stat
139,654 Total adverse event reports
68,864,839 Total doses administered
www.tga.gov.au/news/covid-19-vaccine-safety-reports/covid-19-vaccine-safety-report-02-11-23#summary
ok i need to stop rounding the figure off as the pro vaxxers on here tend to grab anything and everything to further cement their belief in the vax.
ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDERED and FIFTY FOUR
Everyone in this country should know the figure by heart.
Whack-a-Mole returns.
From the TGA website.
"Causality
Adverse event reports that we receive reflect the observations of the people submitting them.
Adverse events are suspected of being related to a medicine, but this relationship is usually not certain - the symptom may be related to an underlying illness or to other factors.
There might be no relationship between the adverse event and the medicine. The symptoms may instead have occurred coincidentally.
Sometimes the adverse event may have been caused by the other ingredients in the medicine such as an excipient ingredient.
Limitations of the data
We encourage people to report even if there is only a very small chance that a medicine was the cause. These reports are entered into the database without being confirmed or assessed to determine if they are caused by a medicine. Many of the reports are made voluntarily and may be incomplete or inaccurate.
The database does not contain all known information concerning a medicine. Therefore, an assessment of a product's safety cannot be made based on this information."
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..D3 said..Carantoc said..remery said..
If most Australians were pro-science there wouldn't have been a need for mandates and lockdowns. ...
Smack-bang right on the head there remery. Boom, jackpot bullseye.
If only the politicans and the pseudo-politicians who stood behind them followed the science we wouldn't have had lockdowns. And without lockdowns we wouldn't have needed the mandates as the only politciaclly palettable way out of the lockdowns.
You are right. As soon as they all started to try to out-do each other, as soon as they had to top the daily statistics, that is when it all turned to ****.
Whatever it takes to be 100% Covid free in New Zealand, Jacinta declared. Then they all had follow. Couldn't be out-covidid by Jacinta. No horrible NSW-covid in Victoria was Dan's political promise. So you needed a permit to enter. McGowan could go one better - no eastern states covid in precious WA - so the whole border shut. Wait, Anna promised anything required to guarantee no child in Qld would die with Covid - so the barricades went up down the middle of the street. Those on the wrong side were infected scum who had to be repelled for the greater good.
And from there there was only ever going to be one way out. A vaccine had to be found. And it had to work. So it was, and it did.
And now we are here.
So, yep remery I couldn't agree with you more - of only they had continued the intiial science based approach, suppress and herd immunity was the pollies phrase - then we wouldn't have had lockdowns and ergo, we would not have needed mandates.
So you're approach would have been what?
I filter all this nonsense out and you have to go and quote it...
From memory we were in a holding pattern with lockdowns UNTIL a vaccine became available. I think SloMo was even quoted as saying as much.
Which is really the only thing that can get you out of it unless you just let everyone catch it, aka 1918. See how that worked out for people.
It's a worry though. So soon that we forget what we all went though and the timeline. It has only been a few years but its so easy to forget what the government was dealing with.
We want them infected, by Dr Howard is probably right up your alley.
Has a timeline of the pandemic along with quotes from high profile scientists/pundits/pollies , to keep their dangerous misinformation in context for posterity
Sometimes the adverse event may have been caused by the other ingredients in the medicine such as an excipient ingredient
Still caused by the medicine.
Adverse event reports that we receive reflect the observations of the people submitting them
So we are to dismiss the opinions of thousands of Australians?
There might be no relationship between the adverse event and the medicine. The symptoms may instead have occurred coincidentally.
Might?
Adverse events are suspected of being related to a medicine, but this relationship is usually not certain - the symptom may be related to an underlying illness or to other factors.
May be?
The database does not contain all known information concerning a medicine. Therefore, an assessment of a product's safety cannot be made based on this information."
Nearly 140 000 reports of harm is pretty damning as to it NOT being 'safe and effective' and to the reactions NOTit being 'rare'.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
ok i need to stop rounding the figure off as the pro vaxxers on here tend to grab anything and everything to further cement their belief in the vax.
ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDERED and FIFTY FOUR
Everyone in this country should know the figure by heart.
Sooooo..... If my primary school maths is correct
139,654 divided by 68,000,000 = 0.00205 X 100 = 0.2059%
Approximately 0.2% of vaccine doses had a reported adverse reaction?
The 139 654 is there for everybody to see.
The TGA despite the figure is still recommending adults take more of them.
Go figure.
"The fact that a medical event has been reported as a suspected side effect does not mean that the vaccine caused it. Anyone can report a suspected side effect, including members of the public and healthcare professionals. Regulators constantly analyse these reports to see if there may be a causal link with the vaccine. They do this by comparing the rate of a medical event in vaccinated people with the rate of the event in the population before the pandemic and before vaccination. As part of this robust and continuous safety monitoring, regulators also consider any other available evidence such as evidence from studies. Most of the time, reported suspected side effects are not caused by the medicine concerned."
"Inclusion in the DAEN - medicines does not mean that the details of the event have been confirmed, or that the event has been determined to be related to a medicine or a vaccine."
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
The 139 654 is there for everybody to see.
The TGA despite the figure is still recommending adults take more of them.
Go figure.
Did you actually search the DAEN? Of course you choose to ignore the fact that a single person might report more than one adverse event (eg headache, sore arm and lethargy). So the 140,000 does not represent individual people. Here's the top 25 adverse events returned for the search "COVID".
Select to expand quoteD3 said..FormulaNova said..D3 said..Carantoc said..remery said..
If most Australians were pro-science there wouldn't have been a need for mandates and lockdowns. ...
Smack-bang right on the head there remery. Boom, jackpot bullseye.
If only the politicans and the pseudo-politicians who stood behind them followed the science we wouldn't have had lockdowns. And without lockdowns we wouldn't have needed the mandates as the only politciaclly palettable way out of the lockdowns.
You are right. As soon as they all started to try to out-do each other, as soon as they had to top the daily statistics, that is when it all turned to ****.
Whatever it takes to be 100% Covid free in New Zealand, Jacinta declared. Then they all had follow. Couldn't be out-covidid by Jacinta. No horrible NSW-covid in Victoria was Dan's political promise. So you needed a permit to enter. McGowan could go one better - no eastern states covid in precious WA - so the whole border shut. Wait, Anna promised anything required to guarantee no child in Qld would die with Covid - so the barricades went up down the middle of the street. Those on the wrong side were infected scum who had to be repelled for the greater good.
And from there there was only ever going to be one way out. A vaccine had to be found. And it had to work. So it was, and it did.
And now we are here.
So, yep remery I couldn't agree with you more - of only they had continued the intiial science based approach, suppress and herd immunity was the pollies phrase - then we wouldn't have had lockdowns and ergo, we would not have needed mandates.
So you're approach would have been what?
I filter all this nonsense out and you have to go and quote it...
From memory we were in a holding pattern with lockdowns UNTIL a vaccine became available. I think SloMo was even quoted as saying as much.
Which is really the only thing that can get you out of it unless you just let everyone catch it, aka 1918. See how that worked out for people.
It's a worry though. So soon that we forget what we all went though and the timeline. It has only been a few years but its so easy to forget what the government was dealing with.
We want them infected, by Dr Howard is probably right up your alley.
Has a timeline of the pandemic along with quotes from high profile scientists/pundits/pollies , to keep their dangerous misinformation in context for posterity
606 pages! Do you have a meme version instead? That's about the limit of my undertanding when it comes to vaccines and timelines and all that other stuff.
I will take it as a given that herd immunity was just a dream and that lockdowns were the only way to protect us. Crack-and-talk is just upset about something (always).
It's not particularly hard to work out what would have happened. Look at the last pandemic of similar magnitude and see what happened. Over 600k people in the USA died, somewhere between 17 and 50 million globally, and the flu just went away (because those succeptible to it died). Problem solved, unless you happened to have been one of them.
The most important organ in your body is your brain.... According to your brain!. Good to see some people are all over this and choosing to not use their brain because of its propensity to peddle leftard logic stuff. Certainly my brain has given rise to all sorts of adverse events over the years. Sigh.. life was easier when I was a teenager and my willy did all my decision making.
Wise words from a wise man early in the pandemic. If the advice was rigorously followed there might not have been a need for mandates.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
So you're approach would have been what?
Formula Nova already asked this about 37 times.
And I gave the same answer 37 times. After the the 37th answer FN decided he couldn't handle the logic of the answer anymore, and that the best way to deal with this was by putting his fingers in his ears and shouting nar-nar-nar loudly.
The answer to your question is simple. I would have done what everybody agreed should be done. Until they all changed their minds based on political one-up-manship.
You can claim I am saying this from a position of hindsight, which was FNs only retort 36 times before the nar-nar-nar started. But I said the same thing in March 2020.
In December 2019, when the first cases of Covid began to emerge there were already federal and state pandemic management plans. Google them yourself, or here is a helping hand www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/australian-health-management-plan-for-pandemic-influenza-ahmppi?language=en
In March 2020 the WA government, as a state example, updated their plan. Here ya go : www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-Labor-Government/Updated-WA-Government-Pandemic-Plan-released-in-response-to-COVID-19-20200311
The strategy was suppression to prevent overloading of the health system and to allow "herd immunity" (the colloquial phrase adopted). The states and the feds all agreed. The media promoted this strategy. The same strategy for every similar panemdic since 1900.
Even Jacinta in NZ agreed. On 21st March 2020 she gave this speech : www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/pm-address-covid-19-update
The first really important thing to remember, is that the vast majority of people who will ever have COVID 19 will only experience mild to moderate symptoms. But there will be some who need more care. That's why we have to focus on one simple goal - to slow down Covid 19.
The above is what I would have done. It is also what everyone agreed should be done.
But booooooom- something happened. Because just two days later Jacinta broke her agreed plan and went all-in elimination. At that date NZ had about 100 confirmed cases and zero deaths. On 23rd March she declared NZ would go full lockdown on 26th March and would eliminate Covid. What part of the plan was this, show me where in her speach on 21st march this could happen. Not would happen - could happen. This was making **** up on the fly, no science, no planning, no forethought, just some random dumb-arse bubble. I'd say thought-bubble but the use of the word 'thought' probably implies something it wasn't.
Not so long later it turns out elimination didn't work. NZ isolation from the world didn't work. So she gave up and went back to the plan. The plan she had on 21st March. The one that should have been followed all-along.
And, following Jacinta's brain-wave (although again, the use of the word 'brain' may be mis-leading), one by one all the state Premiers (with elections rapidly apporaching and daily statistics saying which state had a lower score) broke ranks with the agreed national plan and went all Jacinta-ish. Elimination, lockdowns, state border closures....
And then the only way out of this unplanned hole they dug themselves into - mandated vaccination rates. How else could they lift the controls ?
So, my question 1 to you : What do you think would be more effective:
a) a border closure based on a line on a map from 1910, where the state premier can blame everything beyond the closure point for the problems, and get some statistics to be manipulated into their favour
b) a restriction on travel based on the prevelance of Covid-19 in the community and the basic needs to transit that point
and question 2:
How do we manage Covid today ?
a) Exactly like the plans that were in place in early 2020 (and curiously enough not updated since#), developed over the preceeding 100 years following multiple influenza-based pandemics and epidemics, by committies of experts
b) via politican thought-bubbles of virus elimination at all cost, with lockdowns, state border closures and mandates the only implemantation measures we can come up with that support the elimination strategy
- If you say b) then a), then I reckon you agree with my point.
- If you say anything else then I'd guess you are confusing my point with the crack-pot nonsense promoted by PM33 and others.
- If you put your fingers in your ears and go narr-narrr-narr, like Formula-Nova, than I'd guess you agree with my point, but you don't want to admit it (admit to yourself that is), because then it means you have to accept that the pollies made dumb-decisions based on favourable media headlines tomorrow, and not based on the 'science' of what was best for the population.
bonus question :
#why not ?
Select to expand quoteremery said..
Wise words from a wise man early in the pandemic. If the advice was rigorously followed there might not have been a need for mandates.
Wise words from a wise woman early in the pandemic. If the advice was rigorously followed there would not have been a need for mandates.
The first really important thing to remember, is that the vast majority of people who will ever have COVID 19 will only experience mild to moderate symptoms. But there will be some who need more care. That's why we have to focus on one simple goal - to slow down Covid 19.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..D3 said..
So you're approach would have been what?
Formula Nova already asked this about 37 times.
And I gave the same answer 37 times. After the the 37th answer FN decided he couldn't handle the logic of the answer anymore, and that the best way to deal with this was by putting his fingers in his ears and shouting nar-nar-nar loudly.
The answer to your question is simple. I would have done what everybody agreed should be done. Until they all changed their minds based on political one-up-manship.
You can claim I am saying this from a position of hindsight, which was FNs only retort 36 times before the nar-nar-nar started. But I said the same thing in March 2020.
In December 2019, when the first cases of Covid began to emerge there were already federal and state pandemic management plans. Google them yourself, or here is a helping hand www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/australian-health-management-plan-for-pandemic-influenza-ahmppi?language=en
In March 2020 the WA government, as a state example, updated their plan. Here ya go : www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-Labor-Government/Updated-WA-Government-Pandemic-Plan-released-in-response-to-COVID-19-20200311
The strategy was suppression to prevent overloading of the health system and to allow "herd immunity" (the colloquial phrase adopted). The states and the feds all agreed. The media promoted this strategy. The same strategy for every similar panemdic since 1900.
Even Jacinta in NZ agreed. On 21st March 2020 she gave this speech : www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/pm-address-covid-19-update
The first really important thing to remember, is that the vast majority of people who will ever have COVID 19 will only experience mild to moderate symptoms. But there will be some who need more care. That's why we have to focus on one simple goal - to slow down Covid 19.
The above is what I would have done. It is also what everyone agreed should be done.
But booooooom- something happened. Because just two days later Jacinta broke her agreed plan and went all-in elimination. At that date NZ had about 100 confirmed cases and zero deaths. On 23rd March she declared NZ would go full lockdown on 26th March and would eliminate Covid. What part of the plan was this, show me where in her speach on 21st march this could happen. Not would happen - could happen. This was making **** up on the fly, no science, no planning, no forethought, just some random dumb-arse bubble. I'd say thought-bubble but the use of the word 'thought' probably implies something it wasn't.
Not so long later it turns out elimination didn't work. NZ isolation from the world didn't work. So she gave up and went back to the plan. The plan she had on 21st March. The one that should have been followed all-along.
And, following Jacinta's brain-wave (although again, the use of the word 'brain' may be mis-leading), one by one all the state Premiers (with elections rapidly apporaching and daily statistics saying which state had a lower score) broke ranks with the agreed national plan and went all Jacinta-ish. Elimination, lockdowns, state border closures....
And then the only way out of this unplanned hole they dug themselves into - mandated vaccination rates. How else could they lift the controls ?
So, my question 1 to you : What do you think would be more effective:
a) a border closure based on a line on a map from 1910, where the state premier can blame everything beyond the closure point for the problems, and get some statistics to be manipulated into their favour
b) a restriction on travel based on the prevelance of Covid-19 in the community and the basic needs to transit that point
and question 2:
How do we manage Covid today ?
a) Exactly like the plans that were in place in early 2020 (and curiously enough not updated since#), developed over the preceeding 100 years following multiple influenza-based pandemics and epidemics, by committies of experts
b) via politican thought-bubbles of virus elimination at all cost, with lockdowns, state border closures and mandates the only implemantation measures we can come up with that support the elimination strategy
- If you say b) then a), then I reckon you agree with my point.
- If you say anything else then I'd guess you are confusing my point with the crack-pot nonsense promoted by PM33 and others.
- If you put your fingers in your ears and go narr-narrr-narr, like Formula-Nova, than I'd guess you agree with my point, but you don't want to admit it (admit to yourself that is), because then it means you have to accept that the pollies made dumb-decisions based on favourable media headlines tomorrow, and not based on the 'science' of what was best for the population.
bonus question :
#why not ?
Thanks, I'll try give that a thorough response if I get time today.
I'd just like to point out that rigid adherence to a single pre-planned course of action that doesn't allow for changes to be made as circumstances change and/or new information/data becomes available doesn't seem very scientific.
If you could provide links to health officers and science advisers telling politicians not to lockdown once it was clear the whole flatten the curve thing wouldn't keep infection rates at manageable levels, I'd like to have a read.
The plans do not have a single pre-planned course of action.
Maybe a simple answer to your question would have been :
At no point would I have implemented measures that had a sole aim of elimination of the virus from the entire jurisdiction I ruled over, irrespective of other consequences of those measures;
At no point would I have implemented measures based on the statistical ranking of my jurisdiction compared to others, that were being reported every morning and hurt my political ego;
At no point would I have broken from a federal / COAG agreed plan and devised my own border controls without reference to the jurisdiction on the other side of the border;
At all times I would have implemented measures based on ensuring the heatlh system was not broken by the number of infections, whilst ensuring that the response, and its consequences, is proportionate to the risk and whilst continuing the public information campaign of social distancing, personnel hygiene and protection of the most vulnerable (exactly as the plans state should be the plan).
Select to expand quoteD3 said..Carantoc said..
(Usual crap removed 38 times...)
I need more self control to stop reading the quoted text. Stop quoting this guy!
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..D3 said..
So you're approach would have been what?
Formula Nova already asked this about 37 times.
And I gave the same answer 37 times. After the the 37th answer FN decided he couldn't handle the logic of the answer anymore, and that the best way to deal with this was by putting his fingers in his ears and shouting nar-nar-nar loudly.
The answer to your question is simple. I would have done what everybody agreed should be done. Until they all changed their minds based on political one-up-manship.
You can claim I am saying this from a position of hindsight, which was FNs only retort 36 times before the nar-nar-nar started. But I said the same thing in March 2020.
In December 2019, when the first cases of Covid began to emerge there were already federal and state pandemic management plans. Google them yourself, or here is a helping hand www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/australian-health-management-plan-for-pandemic-influenza-ahmppi?language=en
In March 2020 the WA government, as a state example, updated their plan. Here ya go : www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-Labor-Government/Updated-WA-Government-Pandemic-Plan-released-in-response-to-COVID-19-20200311
The strategy was suppression to prevent overloading of the health system and to allow "herd immunity" (the colloquial phrase adopted). ...
The updated plan doesn't mention anything about herd immunity. Why would it when vaccines were expected to take 18 months in development.
Select to expand quoteremery said..Carantoc said..D3 said..
So you're approach would have been what?
Formula Nova already asked this about 37 times.
And I gave the same answer 37 times. After the the 37th answer FN decided he couldn't handle the logic of the answer anymore, and that the best way to deal with this was by putting his fingers in his ears and shouting nar-nar-nar loudly.
The answer to your question is simple. I would have done what everybody agreed should be done. Until they all changed their minds based on political one-up-manship.
You can claim I am saying this from a position of hindsight, which was FNs only retort 36 times before the nar-nar-nar started. But I said the same thing in March 2020.
In December 2019, when the first cases of Covid began to emerge there were already federal and state pandemic management plans. Google them yourself, or here is a helping hand www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/australian-health-management-plan-for-pandemic-influenza-ahmppi?language=en
In March 2020 the WA government, as a state example, updated their plan. Here ya go : www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-Labor-Government/Updated-WA-Government-Pandemic-Plan-released-in-response-to-COVID-19-20200311
The strategy was suppression to prevent overloading of the health system and to allow "herd immunity" (the colloquial phrase adopted). ...
The updated plan doesn't mention anything about herd immunity. Why would it when vaccines were expected to take 18 months in development.
Actually the plan was based on novel influenza strain vaccine being available in potentially 6 months. Because the whole plan was based primarily on an Influenza virus pandemic, it even notes that things that may work for SARS may not work for Flu.
Clearly stated throughout the plan is the recommendation that vaccination is the best way through a pandemic
Select to expand quoteremery said..
The updated plan doesn't mention anything about herd immunity. Why would it when vaccines were expected to take 18 months in development.
So.... you are assuming that the Plans are assuming that any vaccine yet to be developed for a new influenza type virus will be 100% effective and nothing else will then be required ?
You suggesting the Plans are not based on other influenza type viruses having become endemic within society and not causing human extinction because of things other than a level of natural immunity ?
I don't recall my reading of the Plans interpreted them as saying the only solutions to all previous similar viruses, and therefore any new ones are a) elimination or b) 100% effective vaccine.
Interesting interpretation if you do.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
Actually the plan was based on novel influenza strain vaccine being available in potentially 6 months.
Clearly stated throughout the plan is the recommendation that vaccination is the best way through a pandemic
So we agree then.
They don't include doing whatever measures are required to eliminate the virus from the nation or from the state, They don't include arbitary state border closures as a primary control measure. They don't include doing anything required, at the exclusion of all other conderations, to prevent any person dying with the virus.
The general jist of the control part of the Plans is to reduce the spread and control the numbers so the health system is not overloaded with mild and moderate symtomatic patients such it can't care for the most vulnerable, using measures that are considered and appropriate. These may include social distancing, personal hygiene, development of vaccines, international border screening from locations of highest risk etc.
The plans don't say - Plan A : isolation for all and no more than 20 minutes outside for anyone until exactly 95.000% of the population has had exactly two doses of a vaccine that has an effectiveness that will not be fully understood at that point in time, then immediately remove all restrictions and carry on as normal. Plan B : refer Plan A. Special note : if you live on one side of Boundary Street in Tweed Heads you must not travel 10m to the other-side of the street for certain mass deaths, but it will be perfectly safe for you to travel 1000km south or west.
The initial plan referenced above only mentions "herd immunity" once...
"The following assumptions have also been made about the anticipated effect of the pandemic:
- lack of herd immunity (widespread community immunity) will cause elevated numbers presenting to some level of medical assistance;"
There appears there are a number of people on this forum who support the TGA recommendation for adults to take more of the toxic shots?????? ?????? ??????
Three batches of six.
I see lots of people out and about with their face diaper STILL on.
From their posts i can guess there are a few on here still wearing them lol.
This link to the below YouTube clip with Matt Walsh is not related to the vax but it does illustrate the depths of mind control much of the populations are in.
Fear is probably the best way to control a persons mind.
Saved By The Email | Work More Efficiently With Grammarly (youtube.com)
